I see that. So what you're trying to say is that tapernate and honeycomb approachs are too diferent implementation wise for them to be merged into a single project ?
On 5/3/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I chose to use the Spring stuff to manage the current sessions and allow for declarative transaction demarcation since I know that stuff works quite well. I don't use Spring IoC at all. I just added the Spring stuff into my HiveMind "object soup." -----Original Message----- From: Hugo Palma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:41 AM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Honeycomb vs Tapernate or Honeycomb with Tapernate That's one of the differences in implementation that i found. But i don't see that as a something that will drive my choice, as long as i don't have to use Spring IOC(hivemind will do just fine) for me it's just another jar in the classpath. On 5/3/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One big difference is the usage of the Spring classes within Tapernate. > This is just a difference of opinion/direction. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hugo Palma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:04 AM > To: Tapestry users > Subject: Honeycomb vs Tapernate or Honeycomb with Tapernate > > Hi all, > > i've just started thinking about how Tapestry is going to be used in a new > project at work. One of the decisions is how the integration with > hibernate > is going to be implemented, i'm guessing 95% of Tapestry projects goes > through this. With this in mind i took a look at Honeycomb and at > Tapernate. > They both look great and seem to provide just what i need to this project. > Although this is good, it leaves me with a problem, which one ? > > As i look deeply into each one i find some differences in > implementation/usage of the same feature, some features that are > implemented > in honeycomb and not tapernate and vice-versa, but mainly i see a project > goal difference. It seems that honeycomb looks to not only provide > integration with hibernate but with other libraries that might be useful > in > a web project, tapernate only goal is to implement the tapestry+hibernate > integration. > > With this, some doubts came to mind. > > Why are there two projects for this ? > Wouldn't it be better for both projects if they would join forces ? If so, > shouldn't tapernate be included/merged into honeycombs hibernate > integration > ? > > > What do you guys think ? > > Cheers > > Hugo > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
